1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

STRAIN DEMAND IN AREAS OF MINE SUBSIDENCE

Fan Zhang
1
, Ming Liu, and Yong-Yi Wang
Center for Reliable Energy Systems
Dublin, OH, USA
1
Contact Author

Zhifeng Yu and Lei Tong
China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation
Langfang, Hebei, China


KEYWORDS
Strain Based Design, Ground Movement, Strain Demand

ABSTRACT
Mine subsidence is one of the major ground movement
hazards for buried pipelines in regions of completed and
ongoing mining activities. The strain demand under mine
subsidence is evaluated for candidate pipes to be used in the
construction of large-diameter and high-pressure long distance
pipelines in China. Two typical subsidence forms were
discussed.
1. One form is the sag/trough subsidence with large
subsidence depth and area but continuous boundaries.
The pipeline remains in the soil after the subsidence.
2. The other form is the pit subsidence with small subsidence
depth and area but more severe discontinuous boundaries.
The pipeline may be suspended above the ground surface
in the subsidence hole after the subsidence.
For purposes of this research, the strain demand analysis
was conducted with the commercial finite element analysis
package ABAQUS. The PIPE and ELBOW elements were
selected to simulate the pipeline and the ASCE spring model
was selected to determine the interaction between the pipeline
and surrounding soil. The general consideration of the loads
on pipeline in subsidence analysis is described. The results
show that the pipeline experiences the most severe deformation
during the discontinuous pit subsidence. The strain demands
are compared with the pipe strain capacity in a companion
paper to investigate the integrity of the pipeline.

INTRODUCTION
The Third China West-to-East pipeline goes through
regions with completed and ongoing underground mining
activities. Mine subsidence hazard is a potential threat to the
pipeline during its service life. The evaluation of the pipeline
integrity under such subsidence is crucial at the design stage.
The mining subsidence is classified as pit subsidence or
sag/trough subsidence [1] as shown in Figure 1.

(a) Sag Subsidence (b) Pit Subsidence
FIGURE 1 TYPICAL TYPES OF SUBSIDENCE BY
UNDERGROUND MINING [1]
The typical shape and dimension of the subsidence vary
with the underlying causes. Sag subsidence is typically a
rectangular ground depression with continuous boundaries as
gently sloping sidewalls and usually developed over room-and-
pillar or longwall-extraction mines of greater depth (20 m <
depth < 100 m or more). Trough subsidence typically occurs
in conjunction with longwall mining and is similar to sag
subsidence in surface geometry. Pit subsidence generally
Road
Original land surface
Subsided
earth
Coal
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
Water table
Subsided
earth
Bedrock
Underclay
Coal
Loess and
glacial material
Depth in
meters
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90641
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
occurs over shallow mines (with depth < 50 m) and is roughly a
circular hole in the ground with discontinuous boundaries as
essentially vertical to belled-outward sidewalls. The diameter
of the subsidence pits or holes ranges from about 1 m to 12 m.
The overall work of the project covers two inter-related
elements:
(1) Strain demand analysis of the pipeline under
subsidence hazards as both sag/trough and pit
subsidence, and
(2) Comparison of the strain demands with tensile and
compressive strain capacities.
The current paper focuses on the first element and a companion
paper [2] covers the second element.
SCOPE OF THE PAPER
The pipeline information and the subsidence scenarios are
firstly introduced. Under continuous sag/trough subsidence,
the strain demand was investigated with two pipeline patterns.
In the first pattern, a straight pipeline crosses the subsidence
region. In the second pattern, the pipeline has a 90 bend
within the subsidence region. Under discontinuous pit
subsidence, the strain demand was investigated with a straight
pipeline crossing the subsidence holes. The pipeline was
suspended above the ground surface within the subsidence hole
after the subsidence event.
The strain demand was investigated through finite element
analysis (FEA) with the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) pipe soil interaction model [3]. A brief introduction
of the ASCE model is provided for completeness. Special
consideration of strain demand analysis under subsidence is
discussed and the soil property is provided.
The FEA models for the three subsidence scenarios are
introduced in details. For the pit subsidence, three potential
loading scenarios were considered. The results are presented
and discussed briefly. Finally, the conclusions are extracted.
PIPELINE AND SUBSIDENCE SCENARIOS
Pipeline
Four pipe dimensions were investigated as shown in Table
1. The two gas pipelines had an outside diameter, OD, of
1,016 mm and the two oil pipelines had an OD of 813 mm.
The wall thicknesses, t, of the two gas pipelines were 17.5 mm
and 21.0 mm respectively. The wall thicknesses of the two oil
pipelines were 14.7 mm and 17.2 mm respectively. The radius
of bends in pipelines was six times of OD. The maximum
allowable operating pressure, MAOP, was 10 MPa for all
pipelines.
High-strain X70 and X80 pipes were selected for the
pipelines. The tensile stress-strain curves of the pipe materials
are shown in Figure 2. The curves were developed by fitting
the test data with Ramberg-Osgood relationship. The
specimens were cut from UOE pipe and loaded along the
longitudinal direction. In the following analysis, isotropic
material model was used.
TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF PIPELINES
Wall
thickness
t
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter
OD
Bends
radius
R = 6 OD
Maximum allowable
operating pressure
MAOP
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
17.5
Gas 1016. 6096. 10.
21.0
14.7
Oil 813. 4878. 10.
17.2


FIGURE 2 STRESS STRAIN CURVES UNDER UNIAXIAL
TENSION OF HIGH-STRAIN X70 AND X80 PIPES
Sag/Trough Subsidence
The sag/trough subsidence data were obtained from an
actual mining area. The mining activity was 150 m below the
ground and the mining height was 5 m. The depression region
was close to a square shape covering 500 m 500 m area.
In the first pipeline pattern, a straight pipeline crosses the
subsidence region as shown in Figure 3 (a). The black dashed
lines mark the boundaries of the subsidence region. The bold
blue line represents the pipeline, which is along the x direction
in the figure and passes the subsidence region near one of its
boundaries. Figure 3 (b) presents the displacement of ground
surface along the pipeline in three separate components (Ux,
Uy, and Uz in the x, y, and z directions respectively). The x
and y axes are parallel to the ground surface as shown in Figure
3 (a) and the z axis is in the vertical direction with the positive
direction pointing up. The maximum subsidence depth is
slightly above 3.5 m. The maximum axial displacement (Ux)
and lateral displacement (Uy) are around 1.2 m and 0.4 m
respectively.
The other pattern of pipeline is shown in Figure 4 (a).
The pipeline enters the subsidence region near one boundary of
the subsidence region. There is a 90 bend near the centerline
of the subsidence region, after which the pipeline turns from x
to y direction. The displacement components of the ground
surface above the pipes along the pipeline are presented in
Figure 4 (b). The ground surface displacement was similar to
that shown in Figure 3 for straight pipeline until reaching the
bend at 750 m. A slight increase of Uz could be observed just
after the bend as the pipeline heads to the center of the
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Engineering strain (%)
X80
X70
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
depression region from the boundary slope. Ux was close to
zero after the bend indicating no horizontal ground movement
along the centerline. At the locations where the pipeline
enters and exits the subsidence region, significant ground
movement along the pipe axial direction was observed by Ux
before the bend and Uy after the bend, respectively.
Pit Subsidence
Pit subsidence has small diameter subsidence hole but
discontinuously vertical or even belled-outward sidewalls.
The straight pipeline investigated under such discontinuous
subsidence is illustrated in Figure 5 with parameters in Table 2.
The 50 m diameter is larger than most observed ones in the
field which range from 1 m to 12 m. This large diameter was
selected to cover possible extreme conditions. For the
pipeline with buried depth of 1.2 m and outside diameter of 813
mm or 1016 mm, the 3 m subsidence depth leaves the pipes
suspended above the ground surface in the pit hole.

(a) Pipeline w.r.t. the area of subsidence

(b) Ground Displacement along the Pipeline
FIGURE 3 STRAIGHT PIPELINE CROSSING SAG/TROUGH
SUBSIDENCE

(a) Pipeline w.r.t. the area of subsidence

(b) Ground Displacement along the Pipeline
FIGURE 4 PIPELINE WITH BENDS CROSSING
SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE

FIGURE 5 STRAIGHT PIPELINE CROSSING PIT
SUBSIDENCE
TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF PIT SUBSIDENCE
Pit hole diameter, L (m) 50.
Pit subsidence depth, H (m) 3.0
Buried depth (from ground to pipe top), h (m) 1.2
PIPE SOIL INTERACTION
ASCE Model
There are two common approaches to simulate the pipe
soil interaction (PSI). In the first approach, both pipe and soil
are simulated explicitly with three dimensional continuum
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750
y

(
m
)
x (m)
Subsidence region
Pipeline
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Distance along the pipeline (m)
Ux
Uy
Uz
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750
y

(
m
)
x (m)
Subsidence region
Pipeline w/ bend
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Distance along the pipeline (m)
Ux
Uy
Uz

4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
models. In the second approach the complex interaction
between the pipe and soil is simplified as springs.
Equipped with the advances in computational technology
and soil mechanics, many researchers have investigated the
applicability of the three-dimensional continuum models to
computing pipeline response to large ground displacements.
While continuum analysis methods eliminate many simplistic
representations in the PSI spring models, several significant
obstacles remain to be overcome, including [1]
- large model size,
- requirement for detailed soil property parameters,
- limited relative displacement between pipe and soil,
- inability to capture non-continuum behavior, and
- limited validation.
Therefore, the PSI spring model provided by ASCE guideline
[3,4] was selected for the following strain demand analysis.
The ASCE model simplifies the PSI through three
independent bi-linear springs in axial, horizontal and vertical
directions, respectively. The bi-linear spring model is
characterized by the maximum load and the characteristic
relative displacement between the pipe and soil after which
gross failure of the soil occurs. The spring shows a linear
relationship between force and relative displacement before
reaching the characteristic relative displacement and keeps a
constant force with further deformation. This bi-linear spring
model has been widely used in numerical simulations [5,6].
The ASCE model [3,4] is briefly introduced below.
In pipe axial direction, the maximum soil force per unit
length of pipe (T
u
) that can be transmitted to the pipe is

o t o t tan
2
1
0
K
DH c D T
u
+
+ =
, (1)
where D is the pipe outside diameter; c is the soil cohesion
representative of the backfill soil; o is the adhesion factor; H is
the depth from ground to the pipe centerline;

is the effective
unit weight of soil which equals to the net unit weight of soil
(), or that deducting the buoyance from water when soil is
submerged; K
0
is the effective coefficient of horizontal earth
pressure; and o is the interface angle of friction between pipe
and soil, which equals f| with | as the internal friction angle of
the soil and f as the pipe coating dependent factor. The
characteristic relative displacement corresponding to T
u
, i.e.,
the displacement when force just reaches T
u
, is

= A
clay soft for mm 10
clay stiff for mm 8
sand loose for mm 5
sand dense for mm 3
t
. (2)
In horizontal direction, the maximum soil force per unit
length of pipe (P
u
) is

HD N cD N P
qh ch u
+ =
. (3)
The horizontal bearing capacity factors for clay and sand, N
ch

and N
qh
, depends on the ratio, x H/D, as

( ) ( ) 9 1 / 1 /
3
3
2
2 1 0
s + + + + + = x a x a x a a N
ch
, (4)

4
4
3
3
2
2 1 0
x b x b x b x b b N
qh
+ + + + =
. (5)
The coefficients, a
i
and b
i
, were determined from the fitting to
Hansens model [7] and are listed in Table 3. The
characteristic relative displacement corresponding to P
u
is

D D
D
H
p
15 . 0 to 10 . 0
2
04 . 0 s |
.
|

\
|
+ = A
. (6)
TABLE 3 COEFFICIENTS IN EVALUATION OF THE
HORIZONTAL BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
Bearing
capacity
factors
Soil
friction
angle |
a0 (b0) a1 (b1) a2 (b2) a3 (b3) b4
Nch 0 6.752 0.065 -11.063 7.119
Nqh
20 2.399 0.439 -0.030 1.059E-3 -1.754E-5
25 3.332 0.839 -0.090 5.606E-3 -1.319E-4
30 4.565 1.234 -0.089 4.275 E-3 -9.159E-5
35 6.816 2.019 -0.146 7.651E-3 -1.683E-4
40 10.959 1.783 0.045 -5.425E-3 -1.153E-4
45 17.658 3.309 0.048 -6.443E-3 -1.299E-4

In vertical direction, the spring has different upward and
downward behaviors due to the less constraint of the ground
surface.
The maximum downward soil force per unit length of pipe
(Q
u
) to prevent the relative upward pipe movement, also known
as uplift soil force, is recommended by Audibert et al. [8,9]
following the models proposed by Vesi [10] and Reese and
Casbarian [11]. The maximum force is in the form of

HD N cD N Q
qv cv u
+ =
. (7)
The vertical uplift factors for clay and sand, N
cv
and N
qv
, are
( ) , 10 / 2 s = D H N
cv
(8)

( ) ) for (13) Equation (see 44 /
q q qv
N N D H N s = |
. (9)
The characteristic relative displacement when the uplift force
reaches Q
u
is
. (10)
The maximum upward soil resistance per unit length of
pipe (Q
d
) to prevent relative downward pipe movement, also
known as bearing soil force, is

2
2
D
N HD N cD N Q
q c d


+ + =
, (11)
where is the total unit weight of soil and the bearing capacity
factors, N
c
, N
q
and N

, are

<
<
= A
clays soft to stiff for 2 0 2 . 0 to 0.1
sands loose to dense for 1 . 0 02 . 0 to 01 . 0
D . H H
D H H
qu
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME

( )
( )
( ) | | { } 1 2 / 001 . 0 45 tan 001 . 0 cot
2 001 . 0 tan
+ + + =
+
| |
| t
e N
c
,(12)

( ) 2 / 45 tan
2 tan
|
| t
+ = e N
q
, (13)

5 . 2 18 . 0
=
|

e N
. (14)
The characteristic relative displacement when the bearing force
reaches Q
d
is
. (15)
Soil Properties
The parameters of soil properties used by ASCE model in
current paper are listed in Table 4 with brief descriptions.
There are several considerations for ASCE model during the
strain demand analysis in the current work.
(1) The adhesion factor, o, was assumed to be 1.0 in
Equation (1) for axial soil force, T
u
, based on Figure
B.2 in reference [4];
(2) Dense sand and stiff clay was assumed in
characteristic displacement estimation in Equations (2)
and (10);
(3) The friction angle, |, of clay was zero during the
evaluation of N
ch
with coefficients in Table 3.
TABLE 4 PARAMETERS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Parameters Value Description
(kN/m
3
) 18. Total unit weight of soil

(kN/m
3
) 18. Effective unit weight of soil
c (kN/m
2
) 13. Soil cohesion representative of the backfill soil
| 26 Internal friction angle of the soil
f 0.6
Coating dependent factor for fusion bonded
Epoxy and polyethylene in current paper
K
0
0.5
Effective coefficient of horizontal earth
pressure
h (m) 1.2 Buried depth from ground to pipe top
FEA MODELS FOR STRAIN DEMAND ANALYSIS
FEA was conducted through the commercial FEA package
ABAQUS v6.10. ABAQUS provides PIPE elements to
simulate a general pipeline. The PIPE elements are based on
beam elements but consider the hoop stress generated by
internal and/or external pressure. ABAQUS provides
ELBOW elements to simulate the bends in pipeline. The
ELBOW elements use shell elements formula to consider the
distortion of the pipe cross section by ovalization and warping.
ABAQUS has internal PSI elements to simulate the pipe and
soil interaction. The ASCE model has been implemented into
the PSI elements, which is one of the major benefits to use
ABAQUS for the analysis.
Eight FEA models were developed for each subsidence
scenario and pipeline pattern to investigate the four candidate
pipe dimensions in Table 1 and two pipe grades (X70 and X80).
The weight of the pipe was applied on the pipeline as
distributed load. For the oil pipelines, the weight of liquid
content was also applied. The density of water was used to
estimate the weight of the liquid content, which was
conservative and close to the upper bound of crude oil from
various producing regions. An internal pressure as MAOP of
10 MPa was applied to all models.
FEA Models under Sag/Trough Subsidence
Figure 6 (a) shows the FEA model for the straight pipeline
crossing the subsidence region illustrated in Figure 3. The
pipeline was simulated with 220 PIPE elements and the
interaction between soil and pipe was simulated with the same
number of PSI elements. The pipe cross section geometry is
plotted on PIPE elements only for illustration purpose. Based
on the symmetry of the problem, half of the pipeline was
simulated from 0 m to 750 m in Figure 3. High density mesh
was employed near the location of pipeline entering the
subsidence region from unsettled region, where negative peak
of Ux and highest variation of Uz are shown in Figure 3 (b).
The minimum element size was around 0.8 m. The element
size increased gradually to the symmetric location at 0 m as
well as the far field end at 750 m, where uniform deformation
fields were expected. The largest element at 0 m was around
5.7 m and that at 750 m was around 11.0 m. At each PSI
element location, there were two PSI elements composed of the
same set of nodes. They were used to simulate the response of
sand and clay respectively. First-order linear PIPE and PSI
elements were selected. A fine mesh model with doubled
number of elements was investigated and negligible difference
was observed in the resulting strain. The typical FEA model
before and after the deformation is compared in Figure 6 (b).
All degrees of freedom on the far field end of pipeline at 750 m
were fixed while only the axial translational and all rotational
degrees of freedom on the symmetric point at 0 m were fixed.
The ground surface movement in Figure 3 (b) was applied on
the ground nodes of PSI elements.
Figure 7 (a) shows the FEA model for pipeline with bend
crossing the subsidence region illustrated in Figure 4. The 90
bend was simulated with five ELBOW elements. The bend
thickness was assumed identical with that of straight pipe,
which was conservative. As the cross section distortion did
not vanish immediately out of the bend region, additional
ELBOW elements were distributed in the two straight pipeline
segments connecting the bend. Each segment consisted of 50
uniform ELBOW elements and extended 248 m, at the end of
which the distortion of cross section was negligible. The rest
of pipeline was modeled with uniform PIPE elements.
Second-order quadratic ELBOW, PIPE and PSI elements were
used to increase the accuracy of the simulation. A model with
finer mesh was investigated and produced negligible difference
in the resulting strain. The FEA model before and after the
deformation is compared in Figure 7 (b). All degrees of
freedom at two far field ends of the pipeline in unsettled region
were fixed. The ground movement in Figure 4 (b) was
applied on the ground nodes of PSI elements.

= A
soils cohesive for 2 0
soils granular for 1 . 0
D .
D
qd
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME

(a) FEA Model (b) Before/After the Deformation
FIGURE 6 FEA MODEL FOR STRAIGHT PIPELINE
CROSSING THE SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
REGION

(a) FEA Model

(b) Before/After the Deformation
FIGURE 7 FEA MODEL FOR PIPELINE WITH BENDS
CROSSING THE SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
REGION
FEA Models under Pit Subsidence
The FEA model consisted of 550 PIPE and PSI elements
respectively as shown in Figure 8 (a). The cross section
geometry is plotted on PIPE elements only for illustration.
Due to the symmetry of the problem, only half of the pipeline
was simulated. The pipeline segment in the subsidence region
is highlighted in red. A report by C-CORE, D.G Honegger
Consulting, and SSD [1] recommended the minimum length of
pipeline out of the subsidence region in FEA model as

u
Y
T
Dt
l
o t
=
. (16)
where D and t is the pipe outside diameter and wall thickness,
o
y
is the yield strength of the pipe and T
u
is the maximum axial
soil force from Equation (1). In current work, 675 m was
used, which was larger than l predicted for any pipes in current
paper. The mesh was concentrated near the discontinuous
boundary of the subsidence region where severe deformation
was expected. The minimum element size was 0.08 m, ten
times smaller than that in the models for sag/trough subsidence
due to the extreme condition of discontinuous subsidence
boundary in the pit subsidence. The elements size increases
gradually to the symmetric point and far field end. The largest
element at symmetric point was 0.57 m and that at far field end
is 2.02 m. Second order quadratic PIPE and PSI elements
were selected. A simulation with smaller elements confirmed
the convergence of current mesh. An alternative model with
ELBOW elements for the pipeline was also conducted. The
difference in resulting strain was negligible and suggested the
cross section distortion of the pipe was not significant. The
FEA model before and after the deformation is compared near
the subsidence hole in Figure 8 (b). All degrees of freedom at
far field end were fixed while the axial translational and all
three rotational degrees of freedom at symmetric point of the
pipeline were fixed. All the ground nodes of PSI elements
were fixed to constrain any ground movement outside the
subsidence hole.

(a) FEA Model (b) Before/After the Deformation
FIGURE 8 FEA MODEL FOR STRAIGHT PIPELINE
CROSSING PIT SUBSIDENCE REGION
Three loading scenarios were considered on the pipe
segment inside the subsidence hole as shown in Figure 9. The
similar approach was employed in other literatures [15].
(1) Scenario I. After the subsidence, the pipe is left
without surrounding soil. The only load on the pipe
is the weight of pipeline per unit length, G
p
, as

( ) ( )
4
2
4
2
4
2 2 2
t D t D D
G
oil steel p

+
(

= t t
, (17)
where
steel
and
oil
are the unit weight of steel and oil.
The term of oil is removed for gas pipeline.
(2) Scenario II. After the subsidence, the pipe is left
with soil on its top. The load on pipe includes the
weight of pipeline plus the soil. The maximum
weight of soil per unit length, G
s
, is

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
4 2
1
2
2 2
D D
hD G
s
t

. (18)
(3) Scenario III. During the subsidence, the pipe
experiences the adhesive resistance from surrounding
soil in addition to the weight of pipeline and above
soil. The adhesive resistance is evaluated by the
uplift resistance of clay per unit length pipe, Q
u
in
Equation (7) as
cD N Q
cv u
= . (19)
PSI elements
PIPE elements
PSI elements
PIPE
elements
PIPE
elements
ELBOW elements
PSI (Pipe-Soil Interaction) elements
PIPE elements
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME

steel
Unit weight of steel D Pipe outside diameter

oil
Unit weight of oil t Pipe wall thickness
Unit weight of soil h Pipe buried depth
N
cv
Vertical uplift factor c Soil cohesion representative
FIGURE 9 LOADING SCENARIOS ON PIPE IN PIT
SUBSIDENCE HOLE
STRAIN DEMAND ANALYSIS RESULTS
For each subsidence scenario and pipeline pattern, there
were eight FEA simulations investigating the four candidate
pipe dimensions in Table 1 with X70 and X80 steels. The
results are introduced by subsidence scenarios in the following
subsections. For each scenario, the pipeline deformation and
response to the subsidence are illustrated by the results of oil
pipeline with outside diameter of 813 mm, wall thickness of
14.7 mm and high-strain X70 steel. Tables 5 to 7 summarize
the tensile and compressive strain demand along the axial
direction of the eight simulations.
Strain Demand under Sag/Trough Subsidence
For the straight pipeline crossing the subsidence region, the
axial strain, axial stress, and von Mises stress distribution along
the pipeline were examined. Figure 10 (a) shows distribution
of the maximum and minimum axial strains, c
a
max
and c
a
min
, on
each pipe cross section in red and blue curves respectively.
The pipeline subsidence, u
z
, is also plotted in dotted line. The
origin of the abscissa is the symmetric point of the pipe on the
centerline of the subsidence region. The peak values were
located near the boundary of the subsidence region. Bending
deformation was indicated by the difference between the
maximum and minimum axial strains at the same cross section.
Two bending zones were observed. The maximum and
minimum axial strain curves approached the same point
between two zones, which suggested the opposite bending in
two zones. The significant deformation concentrated near the
subsidence boundary. At the side in the subsidence region, the
pipes experienced uniaxial compression as the maximum and
minimum axial strains have the same negative values. At the
side out of the subsidence region, the pipes experienced
uniaxial tension as the maximum and minimum axial strains
had the same positive value. The axial deformation
approached zero far away from the subsidence boundary.
Figure 10 (b) shows the distribution of maximum and minimum
axial stresses, o
a
max
and o
a
min
, on each pipe cross section in red
and blue curves respectively. Similar distribution was
observed and the most dangerous region was found near the
subsidence boundary. To evaluate the risk of pipe yielding,
the distribution of maximum von Mises stress on each pipe
cross section is shown in Figure 10 (c). The peak von Mises
stresses were developed in two bending zones. For this
particular oil pipeline, the maximum value of von Mises stress
was near 300 MPa, which was well below the yield stress of
X70 steel shown in Figure 2. The pipeline experienced only
elastic deformation.
Table 5 summarizes the tensile and compressive strain
demands along the axial direction of eight straight pipelines
crossing the sag/trough subsidence region. The peak von
Mises stress observed in the pipes is also listed. All the pipes
only developed elastic deformation.
For the pipeline with a 90 bend crossing the subsidence
region, Figure 11 plots the axial strain, axial stress, and von
Mises stress distribution. Figure 11 (a) shows the distribution
of maximum and minimum axial strains, c
a
max
and c
a
min
, on
each pipe cross section along the pipeline in red and blue
curves respectively. The pipeline subsidence, u
z
, is also
plotted. Although bending deformation appeared again near
the subsidence boundaries, the most dangerous region was
found at the bend in the subsidence region where peak tensile
and compressive axial strains were reached.
The region near the bend is generally expected to be the
weak point in the pipeline. The elliptical cross section in the
bend with high curvature in the longitudinal direction tends to
distortion under loading and is much softer than the circular
cross section in straight pipes. Load concentrates at the bend
that serves as the anchor point by connecting two pipeline
segments with different directions. The distribution of axial
stress and von Mises stress in Figure 11 (b) and (c) showed
similar patterns to Figure 11 (a). Please note that the peak von
Mises stress achieved at bend for this particular oil pipeline was
around 450 MPa, approaching the yield stress of X70 steel.
Table 6 summarizes the tensile and compressive strain
demands along the axial direction, as well as the peak von
Mises stress, in eight pipelines with a 90 bend crossing the
sag/trough subsidence region. The strain demand and peak
von Mises stress were much higher than those observed in the
straight pipelines crossing the subsidence region. The pipeline
integrity was evaluated by comparing the strain demand with
strain capacities described in the companion paper [2].

( ) ( )
2 2 2
4
2
4
2
4
t D t D D
G
oil steel p

+
(

= t t
Scenario I
Pipe without surrounding soil
after subsidence
Load on pipe: G
p
The last term is removed for gas pipeline.
h=1.2m
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2 2
4 2
1
2
D D
hD G
s
t
Scenario II
Pipe with soil above it
after subsidence
Load on pipe: G
p
+G
s
cD N Q
cv u
=
Q
c
Scenario III
During subsidence
Load on pipe: G
p
+G
s
+Q
u
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME

(a) Maximum & Minimum Axial Strains Distribution

(b) Maximum & Minimum Axial Stresses Distribution

(c) Maximum von Mises Stress Distribution
FIGURE 10 EXAMPLE OF DEFORMATION AND
STRUCTURE RESPONSE OF STRAIGHT
PIPELINE CROSSING SAG/TROUGH
SUBSIDENCE

(a) Maximum & Minimum Axial Strains Distribution

(b) Maximum & Minimum Axial Stresses Distribution

(c) Maximum von Mises Stress Distribution
FIGURE 11 EXAMPLE OF DEFORMATION AND
STRUCTURE RESPONSE OF PIPELINE WITH
BEND CROSSING SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
u
z
c
a
min
c
a
max
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 100. 200. 300. 400. 500. 600. 700.
Distance along the pipe (m)
o
a
min
o
a
max
u
z
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
600.
400.
200.
0.
-200.
-400.
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 100. 200. 300. 400. 500. 600. 700.
Distance along the pipe (m)
o
M
u
z
V
o
n

M
i
s
e
s
s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
600.
500.
400.
300.
200.
100.
0.
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 100. 200. 300. 400. 500. 600. 700.
Distance along the pipe (m)
c
a
min
c
a
max
u
z
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 500. 1000. 1500.
Distance along the pipe (m)
o
a
min
o
a
max
u
z
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
600.
400.
200.
0.
-200.
-400.
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 500. 1000. 1500.
Distance along the pipe (m)
o
M
u
z
V
o
n

M
i
s
e
s
s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
600.
500.
400.
300.
200.
100.
0.
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 500. 1000. 1500.
Distance along the pipe (m)
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
TABLE 5 STRAIN DEMAND AND PEAK VON MISES
STRESS IN STRAIGHT PIPELINES CROSSING
SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter
OD
Wall
thickness t Steel
Strain demand Max von
Mises
stress
Tensile Compressive
(mm) (mm) (%) (%) (MPa)
gas 1016.
17.5
X70 0.10 0.05 290.
X80 0.10 0.05 290.
21.0
X70 0.09 0.05 247.
X80 0.09 0.05 247.
oil 813.
14.7
X70 0.09 0.04 271.
X80 0.09 0.04 271.
17.2
X70 0.09 0.04 237.
X80 0.09 0.04 237.
TABLE 6 STRAIN DEMAND AND PEAK VON MISES
STRESS IN PIPELINES WITH BEND CROSSING
SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter
OD
Wall
thickness t Steel
Strain demand Max von
Mises
stress
Tensile Compressive
(mm) (mm) (%) (%) (MPa)
gas 1016.
17.5
X70 0.14 0.15 429.
X80 0.14 0.15 483.
21.0
X70 0.13 0.14 425.
X80 0.13 0.14 468.
oil 813.
14.7
X70 0.17 0.18 434.
X80 0.17 0.17 491.
17.2
X70 0.16 0.16 430.
X80 0.16 0.16 486.
Strain Demand under Pit Subsidence
The results of straight pipeline crossing pit subsidence are
presented by the three potential loading scenarios illustrated in
Figure 9. Figure 12 shows the distribution of maximum and
minimum axial strains, c
a
max
and c
a
min
, and the equivalent
plastic strain, c
pla
, near the subsidence hole in red, blue and
green curves respectively. The pipeline subsidence, u
z
, is also
plotted in dotted line. The bending deformation was observed
near the subsidence boundary and the center point of the
spanning pipeline in the subsidence hole. Opposite bending
appeared in these two locations. It was observed that:
(1) Scenario I in Figure 12 (a). The pipes only
experienced elastic deformation under the weight of
pipeline along.
(2) Scenario II in Figure 12 (b). The pipes developed
plastic deformation under the weight of both pipeline
and the soil above. The maximum equivalent plastic
strain appeared near the discontinuous subsidence
boundary. The extreme values of the strain were
moderate.
(3) Scenario III in Figure 12 (c). The plastic
deformation increased dramatically. Dangerous
deformation concentration was observed. The peak
tensile axial strain was close to 2.0% and the peak
compressive strain was close to 0.6% for this
particular oil pipeline.

(a) Potential Loading Scenario I

(b) Potential Loading Scenario II

(c) Potential Loading Scenario III
FIGURE 12 EXAMPLE OF STRAIN DISTRIBUTION IN
STRAIGHT PIPELINE CROSSING PIT
SUBSIDENCE
u
z
c
a
max
c
a
min
c
pla
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70.
Distance along the pipe (m)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70.
Distance along the pipe (m)
u
z
c
a
max
c
a
min
c
pla
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
P
i
p
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
m
)
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70.
Distance along the pipe (m)
10 Copyright 2012 by ASME
The distribution of the stresses was also investigated,
which showed the similar pattern and is not presented here.
Table 7 summarizes the tensile and compressive strain
demands along the axial direction, as well as the peak von
Mises stress, in straight pipelines crossing the pit subsidence
region. The results are listed under three potential loading
scenarios.
TABLE 7 STRAIN DEMAND AND PEAK VON MISES
STRESS IN STRAIGHT PIPELINES CROSSING
PIT SUBSIDENCE
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter OD
Wall
thickness t Steel
Loading
scenarios
Strain demand Peak von
Mises
stress
Tensile
Comp-
ressive
(mm) (mm) (%) (%) (MPa)
gas 1016.
17.5
X70
I 0.03 0.03 271.
II 0.21 0.17 420.
III 1.27 0.76 497.
X80
I 0.03 0.03 271.
II 0.20 0.16 448.
III 0.93 0.58 561.
21.0
X70
I 0.03 0.03 228.
II 0.17 0.14 384.
III 0.86 0.56 484.
X80
I 0.03 0.03 228.
II 0.17 0.14 384.
III 0.60 0.37 542.
oil 813.
14.7
X70
I 0.12 0.10 341.
II 0.53 0.34 468.
III 2.00 0.64 514.
X80
I 0.12 0.10 341.
II 0.36 0.24 517.
III 1.63 0.58 581.
17.2
X70
I 0.10 0.09 297.
II 0.34 0.23 448.
III 1.60 0.59 504.
X80
I 0.10 0.09 297.
II 0.28 0.20 491.
III 1.15 0.50 566.
The pipelines only experienced elastic deformation under
the loading of the pipeline weight in Scenario I. However,
considerable amount of plastic deformation was developed
under the weight of pipeline and the above soils in Scenario II.
The plastic deformation further increased by considering the
adhesive resistance from the surrounding soil during the
subsidence process in Scenario III. The strain demands need
to be compared with the strain capacities to evaluate the
pipeline integrity as described in the companion paper [2].
CONCLUSIONS
Subsidence is a major threat to buried pipeline passing
through regions with completed and ongoing underground
mining activities. This paper investigated the strain demand
in potential pipelines for the Third China West-to-East pipeline
systems passing both sag/trough subsidence region with
continuous boundaries and pit subsidence with discontinuous
boundaries.
(1) For the straight pipeline crossing sag/trough
subsidence region, the highest strain was found at the
subsidence boundary. The strain demand in all
investigated pipes was small. The pipes only
experienced elastic deformation.
(2) For the pipeline with bends crossing the sag/trough
subsidence region, the highest strain was found at the
bend.
(3) For the pipeline passing pit subsidence, three potential
loading scenarios for the pipe segment inside the pit
hole were examined.
a. After subsidence, if the pipes suspended in the pit
hole without soil, the pipelines only experienced
elastic deformation.
b. After the subsidence, if the pipes suspended in the
subsidence hole with soil above, the pipelines
developed plastic deformation.
c. During the subsidence process, the pipes support
the weight of pipeline and the above soil, as well
as the resistance from surrounding soil. The
pipelines developed significant amount of plastic
deformation.
(4) The integrity of the pipeline needs to be evaluated
through the comparison of strain demand with the
strain capacities of the pipe as described in the
companion paper [2].
It is worth to point out that the strain demand in this work
corresponds to the end of subsidence, especially for those of
pipelines in sag/trough subsidence. Higher strain demand may
be observed in the active mining region when the mine face
advances incrementally across the panel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support of China Petroleum Pipeline
Engineering Corporation (CPPE) for this work is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] C-CORE, D.G. Honegger Consulting, and SSD, 2009,
Guidelines for Constructing Natural Gas and Liquid
Hydrocarbon Pipelines through Areas Prone to Landslide and
Subsidence Hazards, PRCI Final Report.
[2] Zhang, F., Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., Yu, Z., and Tong, L.,
2012, Integrity of Pipeline in Area of Mine Subsidence, Paper
No. IPC2012-90642, Proc. 9th International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada.
[3] Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines of the ASCE
Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 1984,
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline
Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
[4] American Lifelines Alliance, 2005, Guidelines for the
Design of Buried Steel Pipe, 2001 version (with addenda
through Feb 2005), American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY.
[5] Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., and Yu, Z., 2008, Response of
Pipelines under Fault Crossing, Proc. 18th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.[6] Karamitros, D.K., Bouckovalas, G.D., and
Kouretzis, G.P., 2007, Stress Analysis of Buried Steel
11 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Pipelines at Strike-Slip Fault Crossings, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 27, pp. 200-211.
[7] Hansen, J.B., 1961, The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid
Piles against Transversal Forces, Bulletin 12, Danish
Geotechnical Institue, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[8] Audibert, J.M.E., Lai, N.W., and Bea, R.G., 1978,
Design of Pipelines to Resist Seafloor Instabilities and
Hydrodynamic Forces, Paper No. 78-PET-37, Proc. Energy
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.
[9] Audibert, J.M.E., Lai, N.W., and Bea, R.G., 1979,
Design of Pipelines-Sea Bottom Loads and Restraints, Proc.
Pipeline in Adverse Environments, New Orleans, LA, ASCE, 1,
pp. 187-203.
[10] Vesi, A.S., 1969, Breakout Resistance of Objects
Embedded in Ocean Bottom, Proc. the ASCE Ocean
Engineering Conference, Miami Beach, FL.
[11] Reese, L.C., and Casbarian, A.O.P., 1968, Pipe Soil
Interaction for a Buried Offshore Pipeline, SPE 2343, Proc the
43rd Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Houston TX.
[12] Rowe, R.K., and Davis, E.H., 1982, The Behavior of
Anchor Plates in Sand, Geotechnique, 32, pp. 25-41.
[13] Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, J. Wiley,
New York.
[14] Meyerhof, G.G., 1955, Influence of Roughness of Base
and Ground-Water Conditions on the Ultimate Bearing
Capacity of Foundations, Geotechnique, 5, pp. 227-242.
[15] Wu, Z., and Han, B., 2010, Deformation Characteristics
of Pipeline in Mining Subsidence Areas Based on Strain,
Paper No. IPC2010-31010. Proc. 8
th
International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada.